ber of those who read the Scriptures are compelled to believe that which God has not revealed. But can we suppose God has spokes, to us in words calculated to perplex and mislead? No. We must think he has thrown over the path of holiness a light so clear that the way-faring men, though fools, may not err therein.*

This one consideration is of itself irresistible in favor of our ceiving the Scriptures upon the maxim that has been stated. But in the sermon referred to, we pointed our readers to another maxim directly contrary to the one just mentioned, which, clothed in words by him who embraces it, is as follows: I WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS THING, WHATEVER BE THE PROOF, BECAUSE I CANNOT SEE HOW IT AGREES WITH ANOTHER THING, KNOWN OR BELIEVED TO BE TRUE." This principle of belief we have called the wrong maxim, or the maxim of the Jew. For, on this maxim we found the Jew, who rejected the testimony of Jesus Christ-the Atheist, who denies the existence of God-the Deist, who denies the Bible-the Unitarian, who denies the Trinity and every fundamental truth of the gospeland the Arminian, who denies the doctrine of Predestination.

Our Arminian brethren have revolted from this charge, and so far misunderstood the sermon upon the right and the wrong maxim, to suppose the author considered them possessing claims to th christian character no higher than those possessed by Unitarians.-That our Arminian brethren would draw back and dislike to confess themselves standing upon this wrong maxim, was expected-and w too regret to find them on that ground-but we do not wish our charge against them to be spread over a wider space than has been defined by us. We restricted it to the fact, that, upon the doctrine of predestination, they occupy Unitarian ground. Their christian character is fully and freely recognized. To accuse us of denying them that character, looks very much like a desire to draw off the atten tion of the reader from the real question.

The true question at issue is this: Does the Arminian stand upon the wrong maxim when he opposes the doctrine of Predestination:We have said he does-because, first, he denies the plain and obvious meaning of the Scriptures upon that doctrine from his inabil ity to see how it can be made to agree with his ideas of the justice God, the free moral agency of man, and the sincerity of God in his offer of salvation to all men-and because, secondly, he, in order to make those passages, upon which we rely as teaching the doctrine of Predestination, suit his scheme, explains away the plain and ob vious meaning, upon the identical interpretation chosen by the Uni

Sce Septem. No. page 264.

1147

tarian to overthrow those passages whose obvious meaning we adduce to maintain the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and every doctrine of Grace. This is the charge, and it is a very plain one.-He who meets this charge must shew, either that it is right, in the Arminian, to stand with the Unitarian, the Deist, and the Atheist, upon the maxim of the Jew-or, it must be proved, that he does not stand upon that maxim. Any attempt at speaking or writing against what we have said, which comes short of this, however it may serve to delude the unthinking, for all the purposes of truth, is an idle shower of words. So far from considering this charge uncharitable, we beg to be heard again in support of it. Paul did not scruple to accuse Peter of dissimulation, while he knew him to be an inspired and holy man; and Protestants besitate not to hold up to abhorrence the blasphemy of the Roman Catholic Church, and to denounce it as Antichrist, although they admit that the fundamental doctrines of the cross are acknowledged in the creed of that church, and embraced in holy faith by many in its communion. It is on this ground we stand. We consider it duty to God, and duty to man, to testify against the Arminian, if he is found, in his opposition to predestina. tion, upon the foundation of the Unitarian, for it is the maxim of infidelity. Does he stand there? That is the question.

Various facts have already been given to maintain the position that has just been stated. We will give others, and still shall have many more in reserve to render us even tedious in the number of our proofs. We deem the question highly important, and mean to be tedious.

To be perfectly plain, we will give the evidence to support our charge upon the two parts of it, in the order in which they stand. The Arminian, we have said, is upon the wrong maxim when he opposes the doctrine of Predestination-because

1. He denies the plain and obvious meaning of the Scripture, brought to support that doctrine, from his inability to see how it can be made to agree with his ideas of the justice of God, the free moral agency of man, and the sincerity of God in his offers of salvation to all men. In proof of this declaration the reader is requested to peruse the following extract from Dr. Clarke's preface to the Epistle to the Romans, page 4, first Amer. Roy. Oct. Edit.

"From the manner in which this Epistle has been interpreted and applied, various most discordant and conflicting opinions have originated. Many commentators, forgetting the scope and design of it, have applied that to men in general, which most obviously belongs to the Jews, as distinguished from the Gentiles, and to them only.

From this one mistake, the principal controversies that have agitated and divided the church of Christ, concerning the doctrines of unconditional reprobation and election, have arisen. Men eminent for their talents, learning and piety, have interpreted and applied the whole on this mistaken ground. They have been opposed by others, not at all their inferiors either in religion or learning, who, not at tending properly to the scope of the Apostle, have rather argued from the perfections of the Divine nature, and the general concurrent sensɛ of Scripture, and thus proved that such doctrines cannot comport with those perfections, nor with the analogy of Faith; and that the apostle is to be interpreted according to these, and not according to the apparent grammatical import of the phraseology which he employs."

We really think this statement contains the very thing we have said. For here we are told that Arminians have rejected the appa rent grammatical import of the phraseology" the Apostle employs upon the subject of Election, because it did not comport with their ideas of the perfections of the Divine nature, the general concurrent sense of Scripture," and "the analogy of Faith." Now, the charge we have made, is, that he, the Arminian, denies the plain and obvious meaning of the Scriptures, brought to support the doctrine of Election, from his inability to see how it can be made to agree with his ideas of the justice of God, the free moral agency of man, and the sincerity of God in his offers of salvation to all men. The idea conveyed by Dr. Clarke, is precisely that meant to be conveyed by us. For, his "grammatical import," is the same as our plain and obvious meaning; and his expressions-perfections of the divine nature,' 'general concurrent sense of Scripture,' and 'analogy of Faith,' carry the same sense we attach to the phraseology-jus tice of God,' 'free moral agency,' and 'divine sincerity." We have said this is standing upon the wrong maxim, because it is the ground occupied, among other holders of error, by the Unitarian. It is literally the foundation stone of the Unitarian. What more does he want to accomplish his scheme than to be allowed to make the apparent grammatical import of the language of the Bible yield to his ideas of the perfections of the Divine nature, and the general concurrent sense of Scripture? He asks nothing more. Give him his liberty, and he is able to prove that such doctrines as original sin. the divinity of Christ, and the atonement, cannot comport with those perfections, nor with the analogy of Faith. Let us hear him. Dr. Channing, (Unitarian,) in his sermon delivered at the ordination of the Rev. Jared Sparkes, after reasoning with great plausibility

against what he considers the "unnatural and unscriptural doctrine of the Trinity," and after declaring the doctrine of the Divine and human nature in the person of Christ, repugnant to common sense and the general strain of Scripture," continues-"I am aware, that these remarks will be met by two or three texts, in which Christ is called God, and by a class of passages, not very numerous, in which divine properties are said to be ascribed to him. To these we offer one plain answer. We say, that it is one of the most established and obvious principles of criticism, that language is to be explained according to the known properties of the subject to which it is ap plied. Now we maintain that the known properties and circumstances of Christ-his birth-sufferings-and death-his constant habit of speaking of God as a distinct being from himself, his praying to God, his ascribing to God all his power, and offices, these acknowledged properties of Christ, we say, oblige us to interpret the comparatively few passages, which are thought to make him the supreme God, in a manner consistent with his distinct and inferior nature. It is our duty to explain such texts by the rule, which we apply to other texts, in which human beings are called Gods, and are said to be partakers of the Divine nature, to know and possess all things, and to be filled with all God's fullness. "These latter passages we do not hesitate to modify, and restrain, and turn from the most obvious sense, because this sense is opposed to the known properties of the beings to whom they relate; and we maintain, that we adhere to the same principle, and use no greater latitude in explaining, as we do, the passages which are thought to support the Godhead of Christ."

Unitarians then feel it their duty to modify, and restrain, and turn from the most obvious sense, ""the passages which are thought to support the Godhead of Christ," and to interpret them in a manner consistent with their ideas of "his distinct and inferior nature." And we have the testimony of Dr. Clarke, that Arminians have argued that the apostle Paul, upon the subject of Election, is to be interpreted according to their ideas of "the perfections of the Divine nature," "the general concurrent sense of Scripture," and "the analogy of faith, and not according to the apparent grammatical import of the phraseology which he employs.

It is impossible, we think, for language to shew more clearly than in the passages we have compared, that the Arminian and the Unitarian stand upon the same maxim-that the one denies the Divinity of Christ, and the other denies the doctrine of Predestination, because they cannot reconcile the plain and obvious meaning of the

Scriptures, upon these doctrines, with other things known or be lieved by them to be true. This substantiates the first part of our charge.

It is true, Dr. Clarke tells us, in the passage quoted, that the scope and design of the epistle is obviously to apply the term elec tion to the Jews as distinguished from the Gentiles, and to them only. But this scope, and design, and obvious application, he assures us, has not been "properly attended to," by "men eminent for their talents, learning and piety," among the Calvinists, nor by "others, not at all their inferiors either in religion or learning," in the Arminian belief. Where then has Dr. Clarke himself found this scope and design? In the plain and obvious meaning of the words? In "the apparent grammatical import of the phraseology" employed by the apostle? No. This scope and design is the Unitarian interpretation of Paul's Epistle to the Romans! This brings us to consider the second part of our charge against the Arminian.

viz: That

2. He, in order to make those passages upon which we rely as teaching the doctrine of Predestination, suit his scheme, explains away the plain and obvious meaning upon the identical interpretation chosen by the Unitarian to overthrow those passages whose ob vious meaning we adduce to maintain the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and every doctrine of grace. The passage we have already extracted from Dr. Channing, might be fairly adduced to maintain this position. But we copy again the language of Dr. Clarke. It is the immediate continuation of his statement already quoted:

"On both sides,” Calvinistic and Arminian, the disputes have run high; the cause of Christ has gained little, and christian charity and candor have been nearly lost. Dispassionate men, on seeing this, have been compelled to exclaim

Tantæne animis cœlestibus iræ!

Can such fierce zcal in heavenly bosoms dwell?

To compose these differences, and to do justice to the Apostle, and set an important portion of the Word of God in its true and genuine light, Dr. John Taylor, of Norwich, a divine who yielded to few in command of temper, benevolent feeling, and deep acquaintance with the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, undertook the elucidation of this much controverted Epistle. The result of his labors was 2 paraphrase and notes on the whole book, to which is prefixed “A Key to the Apostolic Writings; or an Essay to explain the Gospel Scheme, and the principal words and phrases the Apostles have used in describing it." 4to. 1769, fourth edition. This Key in